2018 (1) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by M/s. Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd. against demand of interest and imposition of penalty. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that they had wrongly availed cenvat credit twice during the month of May 2011 on the same document but the same was reversed without utilising the said credit.  The credit was reversed in October 2012.  He argued that  they reversed without utilising the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... summary of cenvat of 2011-12 and 2012-13. 3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. 5. It is noted that in the month of May 2011 the appellants availed credit on two documents twice.  The total amount of credit wrongly availed exceeded Rs. 25 lakhs which is a small sum.  The total availment of credit was deducted by scrutiny of record....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at the end of the month of May 2011 was utilised by the appellants in the month of June itself.  In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the credit taken was not utilised and was merely a book entry.  In these circumstances, the provisions of Rule 2014 are clearly attracted and appellant is liable to pay interest and penalty. 7. Ld. Counsel has sought to invoke the provisions ....